Citation Nr: 9918559
Decision Date: 07/07/99 Archive Date: 07/15/99
DOCKET NO. 97-05 385 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville,
Tennessee
THE ISSUE
Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral hearing
loss disability.
REPRESENTATION
Appellant represented by: The American Legion
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD
C. Crowley, Associate Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from January 1948 to June
1951.
This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) from a January 1996 rating decision of the Nashville,
Tennessee, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), which denied the issue on appeal.
REMAND
The Board notes that the veteran alleges that the RO reached
its decision based partly on an inaccurate medical history.
Because the "Rating Board MD" may have also came to the
conclusion that it was not at least as likely as not that the
veteran's sensorineural hearing loss was due to his active
service based on this evidence, the Board finds that an
additional medical records review, by a specialist who has
not already seen the veteran, is indicated. Although the
Board regrets the delay, in order to assure that appellate
consideration is fully informed, the case is REMANDED to the
RO for the following:
1. Refer the veteran's entire claims
file and a copy of this remand to a VA
specialist, other than those who
previously evaluated the veteran, for the
purpose of obtaining the following
medical opinions:
A. If the basic facts were as
follows: the veteran worked between
12 and 14 hours per day for two
years unloading operating propeller
planes without ear protection, lay
statements claim he did manifest
hearing loss symptomatology after
his return from service, and the
veteran worked in construction for
short time after service, would it
be at least as likely as not that
his current sensorineural hearing
loss is proximately related to the
noise exposure he was subjected to
during his active service?
B. Would it also be at least as
likely as not that the veteran's
tinnitus is also related to his
service? The medical rationale for
all opinions expressed must be
provided. If it is not medically
feasible to exclude the veteran's
in-service noise exposure from his
current sensorineural hearing loss,
the reviewer shall so note on the
examination report.
2. Following completion of the above,
the RO should review the claims folder
and ensure that all of the foregoing
development actions have been completed.
If any development is incomplete,
appropriate corrective action should be
taken.
3. The RO shall also adjudicate the
veteran's informal claim for tinnitus.
No inferences should be drawn regarding either the RO's
handling of the claim to date or any final disposition of the
claim by the Board.
The Board expresses its gratitude in advance to the RO for
its assistance in completing the above development, and we
trust that it will attend to this development in an
expeditious manner.
The veteran need take no action until he is so informed. The
purpose of this REMAND is to obtain additional evidence.
M. W. GREENSTREET
Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 1991& Supp. 1999), only a
decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This
remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not
constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your
appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (1998).